|
|
 Why would not simply making use of the lands of a country (i.e. for traveling) make you subject to that country's laws because of the implicit benefits you gain (i.e. safe passage, an efficient road, etc.)? I believe that Locke himself addresses this question from this point of view in a later section of the Second Treatise.
The best argument against interference of the life of an individual is made by Mill: "the strongest of all arguments against the interference of the public with purely personal conduct is that, when it does interfere, the odds are that it interferes wrongly, and in the wrong place" (78). The United States currently has many laws governing personal behavior that have failed miserably. The attempt to control drug use is a perfect example of the government "interfering wrongly in the wrong place." The use of drugs by individuals should not be of anyone's concern unless the user fails to meet his responsibilities to his family or others. We now live in a society where violent criminals are released early from jail punishment so that we can punish people for their individual behavior even though they have harmed no one. Mill is right we must stop punishing people for actions that harm no one but the individual performing the action. Man must quit being the judge of man when it comes to personal behavior. Individual Liberty must be guaranteed if we are to live in a truly free society.
|
| |
Favorites
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Magnolia
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
BlinkList